Wasim Fakruddin Shaikh vs The Commissioner Of Police And Ors

CNR No : HCBM010230382026

2026:BHC-AS:44754-DB

1 of 18 306-WP-2488-2026.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2488 OF 2026
Wasim Faruddin Shaikh,
Age :- 36 Years, Occ. Unknown,
(Presently in Yavatmal District Prison)
th
R/o. :- Flat No. 803, 8 Floor,
Tahira Building, Nawazish Parkh,
Sunday Bazar, Lane No. 7,
Kondhwa, Pune. … Petitioner
Versus
1. The Commissioner of Police,
Pune City, Office of the Commissioner
of Police, 2, Sadhu Wasvani Road,
Camp, Pune City.
2. The State of Maharashtra
Through Principal Secretary,
Department of Home,
Government of Maharashtra,
Mantralaya, Madam Cama Road,
Mumbai – 400032
3. The Superintendent of Yavatmal,
District Prison, Yavatmal ... Respondents
__________
Mr. Siddharth Sutaria for Petitioner.
Mr. S. V. Gavand, APP for Respondent-State.
__________
Sagar Magar
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 17:29:15

2 of 18 306-WP-2488-2026.docx
CORAM: SARANG V. KOTWAL &
RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, JJ.
th
DATE: 30 OCTOBER 2026
JUDGMENT (PER RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J) :-
1) By the present petition, the Petitioner seeks to challenge
nd
the Order of Detention dated 22 January 2026, passed by the
Respondent No. 1 i.e Commissioner of Police, Pune City and also the
Committal Order of even date directing that the Petitioner be detained
in Yavatmal District Prison, Yavatmal.
2) Heard Mr. Siddharth Sutaria, learned Counsel for the
Petitioner, and Mr. S. V. Gavand, learned APP for the Respondent-State.
3) Mr. Siddharth Sutaria, learned Advocate appearing for the
Petitioner, on instructions states that, though the Petitioner has raised
various grounds in the petition, he is restricting his arguments only to
one ground, i.e., the Grounds of Detention would indicate that, though
the Detaining Authority has relied on the past instances/offences to
term the Petitioner as a dangerous person as defined under Section 2(b-
1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981 (for
short “MPDA Act”), in paragraph 8 of the Grounds of Detention, the
Detaining Authority has stated that it has relied on the instances
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 17:29:15

3 of 18 306-WP-2488-2026.docx
mentioned in paragraph 5 and 6 of the Grounds of Detention. The
learned Advocate submitted that, the said contradictory stand has
created confusion in the mind of the Petitioner due to which the right of
the Petitioner to make an effective representation is adversely affected
and impaired.
4) Per Contra, Mr. S. V. Gavand, the learned APP appearing for
the Respondent-State, submits that the reference to past
instances/offences and preventive actions is only to put down the facts
as to the past history and conduct of the Petitioner. That, the said past
instances would only show the Petitioner's inclination and propensity
towards the criminal acts and activities. Mr Gavand, the learned APP
while specifically referring to paragraph 8 of the Grounds of Detention
submitted that, the Detaining Authority has infact only relied upon the
offences and instances/incidents mentioned in paragraphs 5.1, 6.1 and
6.2 of the Grounds of Detention to arrive at its subjective satisfaction
that, the Petitioner is a dangerous person as defined under Section 2(b-
1) of the MPDA Act. The said conclusion is based on the available
material which was provided to the Petitioner. The material and the
grounds are clear and therefore there was no reason or question of any
confusion being created.
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 17:29:15

4 of 18 306-WP-2488-2026.docx
5) We have considered the submissions and perused the
nd
record, including the Grounds of Detention dated 22 January 2026. A
perusal of paragraph 2 of the Grounds of Detention indicates that, the
Petitioner has been described and termed as a weapon-wielding
dangerous recidivist of violent nature, indulging in criminal activities
which create terror in society. It is recorded that, the Petitioner has
become a perpetual danger to the lives and properties of people residing
and carrying out their daily activities within the jurisdiction of Bharti
Vidyapeeth, Khadak and Kondhwa Police Stations in Pune City. It is
further specifically stated that, the Petitioner, along with his
accomplices, moves around the area armed with deadly weapons, i.e.,
iron rod, koyta etc and does not hesitate to use the same while
committing offences such as voluntarily causing hurt, committing
robbery etc. In paragraph 2 itself, the Detaining Authority has
concluded that, the Petitioner has made himself a virtual terror on
account of his criminal activities mentioned in paragraph 2 of the
Detention Order. Paragraph 2 of the Detention Order specifically records
that the Petitioner is habitually committing offences punishable under
the Indian Penal Code, 1860, BNS, 2023, as well as offences under the
Arms Act. It is on this basis that the Petitioner has been termed a
"Dangerous Person" as defined under Section 2(b-1) of the MPDA Act.
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 17:29:15

5 of 18 306-WP-2488-2026.docx
We have noted that, the Detaining Authority, in paragraph 2, has
specifically concluded :-
“2. ..Thus, you have made yourself a virtual terror on
account of your below mentioned criminal activities. You
have been habitually committing offences punishable under
Indian Penal Code, and under BNS Act as well as offences
under Arms Act and you are thus a “Dangerous Person” as
defined under Section 2(b-1) of the said Act. Further, your
criminal activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of
public order.”
6) Paragraph 3 of the Grounds of Detention, refer to the past
offences and preventive actions taken against the Petitioner. There is a
total of four offences referred to in paragraph 3.1. The first offence is
th
C.R. No. 193 of 2016, registered on 16 May 2016 with Kondhwa Police
Station under Sections 394, 34 and 411 of the IPC and under Section
4(25) of the Arms Act. The second C.R. bearing No. 682 of 2020,
th
registered on 27 June 2020 with Khadak Police Station under Sections
326, 323, 504, 506, 120(b) and 34 of the IPC, under Section 37(1)/135
of the MPA and under Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act.
th
The third offence is C.R. No. 1070 of 2023, registered on 18 October
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 17:29:15

6 of 18 306-WP-2488-2026.docx
2023 with Kondhwa Police Station. In this C.R., a notice was served
th
upon the Petitioner under Section 41(a)(1) of the Cr.P.C. on 20
th
October 2023. The fourth crime is C.R. No. 16 of 2025, registered on 6
January 2025 with Bharti Vidyapeeth Police Station under Sections
118(2), 118(1), 115, 351(2) and 352 of the BNS, under Section 4(25)
of the Arms Act, under Section 37(1)(3)/135 of the MPA and under
Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act.
7) Further in paragraph 3 of the Grounds of Detention, two
preventive actions have been referred to. The first is Chapter Case No.
th
21 of 2020, dated 19 September 2020, registered with Khadak Police
Station under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the MPA. In this case, the
Petitioner was externed for two years from Pune and Pimpri Chinchwad
Police Commissionerate and Pune District by the Deputy Commissioner
of Police, Zone-I, Pune. The second preventive action is Chapter Case
th
No. 19 of 2025, registered on 18 February 2025 with Bharti
Vidyapeeth Police Station under Section 129(a)(e)(g) of the BNSS. It is
further stated that, the aforesaid crimes which were registered and
preventive actions taken did not curtail the Petitioner, and that the
Petitioner continued to commit similar offences which adversely
affected the maintenance of public order within the jurisdiction of
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 17:29:15

7 of 18 306-WP-2488-2026.docx
Kondhwa Police Station.
8) Paragraph 5 of the Grounds of Detention refers to C.R. No.
th
718 of 2025, registered on 16 September 2025 with Kondhwa Police
Station under Sections 118(1), 189(2), 189(4), 115(2), 352 and 351 of
the BNS and under Section 4(25) of the Arms Act. The said C.R.
th
pertains to an incident dated 27 May 2025. A perusal of the statement
in the said C.R. would indicate that the same refers to an
altercation/fight between the Petitioner and his accomplices and the
complainant in the said C.R. The said statement would prima facie
indicate that it is an individualistic offence and does not pertain to
public order nor does it involve any general public. The incident refers
to an altercation that took place between the complainant, the
Petitioner and his accomplices.
9) Further, in paragraph 6 of the Grounds of Detention, there
are in-camera-statements, i.e., Witness A and Witness B. The statement
th
of Witness A pertains to an incident dated 10 September 2025. The
said witness has stated that, while he was going home, he was stopped
by the Petitioner, threatened, and an amount of Rs. 12,000/- was
forcibly taken from the complainant. The incident pertaining to Witness
th
B is dated 14 September 2025. In this incident, the complainant has
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 17:29:15

8 of 18 306-WP-2488-2026.docx
stated that, the Petitioner stopped his vehicle, assaulted him, dragged
him and abused him. The vehicle was also damaged by the Petitioner.
An amount of Rs. 3,500/- was taken by the Petitioner from the witness.
10) In paragraph 8 of the Grounds of Detention, the Detaining
Authority has specifically stated that it has relied upon the material
mentioned in paragraph 5.1, 6.1 and 6.2 of the Grounds of Detention.
11) In paragraph 5.1 of the Grounds of Detention, the relied
upon C.R. is referred to as C.R. No. 718 of 2025, registered under
Sections 118(1), 189(2), 189(4), 115(2), 352 and 351 of the BNS and
under Section 4(25) of the Arms Act. In the said C.R., one Mr.
Mohammad Sohail alias Punjabi Azam Khan, a rickshaw driver, is the
th
complainant. It is alleged that on 27 May 2025, the complainant
dropped a passenger from Ruby Hall to Shalimar Society. At that time, a
friend of the complainant's acquaintance, named Aquib, called him and
told him to come near the wine shop at Silver Stone in Salunkhe Vihar.
The complainant reached there by his rickshaw at around 10.30 p.m. At
that time, the Petitioner and his two companions, Ajju and Amit, were
present there. At that time, the Petitioner caught the complainant by his
hair at the instance of Ajju. The Petitioner left the complainant, and the
complainant ran away from there and reached Nawazish Chowk by
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 17:29:15

9 of 18 306-WP-2488-2026.docx
rickshaw at around 11.30 to 11.45 p.m. At that time, the complainant
received a call from his friend named Salim Bago. The complainant
informed Salim of the above incident. Salim told the complainant to
meet him at Mithanagar. The complainant met him at Mithanagar.
Salim and one Aqib asked the complainant to accompany them on their
Burgman vehicle. At around 12.00 a.m., all of them went near the
cemetery at Salunkhe Vihar. The Petitioner, along with one Mr. Ajju and
Amit, was present there. After drinking alcohol at that place, everyone
started arguing over an old dispute. At that time, one Mr. Mohsin
Hassan Shaikh called the Petitioner on his mobile phone. The Petitioner
received the call on speakerphone. Mohsin told the Petitioner and
others to beat the complainant. On the instructions of Mohsin, Ajju,
Amit and Salim kicked the complainant, and Aqib hit the complainant
with a belt. At that time, the Petitioner took out a sharp iron weapon
attached to his waist and showed it to the complainant and threatened
him. The complainant ran away. The Petitioner and the others chased
the complainant. After the complaint was filed, the Petitioner was
th
arrested on 16 September 2025.
12) In paragraph 6.1 of the Grounds of Detention, the
statement of Witness A has been recorded. The statement of Witness A
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 17:29:15

10 of 18 306-WP-2488-2026.docx
th
was recorded on 18 November 2025 and pertains to an incident dated
th
10 September 2025. The witness has stated that when the witness was
going home through Sunday Bazaar Lane, the Petitioner stopped the
witness, shouted at him and abused him. The Petitioner slapped and
assaulted the witness. The witness was threatened with a Koyta. On
seeing the commotion and the conduct of the Petitioner, people started
running away. The Petitioner put his hand in the witness's pocket and
forcibly took Rs. 12,000/-. The Petitioner threatened the witness of dire
consequences.
13) Paragraph 6.2 of the Grounds of Detention refers to the in-
st
camera statement of Witness B, which was recorded on 21 November
th
2025 and pertains to an incident dated 14 September 2025. The
witness is employed as a manager in a private company. The witness has
stated that he was aware that the Petitioner had been in jail on many
occasions and that, due to fear of the Petitioner, no one complained
th
against him. On 14 September 2025, the witness was going from
Nawazish Park, Kondhwa. At that time, the witness's two-wheeler hit
the Petitioner. The Petitioner dragged the witness off the vehicle, abused
him and beat him with kicks and fists. At that time, two of his
companions knocked down the witness's vehicle, broke its headlight and
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 17:29:15

11 of 18 306-WP-2488-2026.docx
damaged the vehicle. The witness was abused and assaulted. The
Petitioner and his accomplices took an amount of Rs. 3,500/- from the
witness's pant pocket. On seeing the incident, people started running
away.
14) In paragraph 8 of the Grounds of Detention, the Detaining
Authority has specifically stated that it has relied upon the material
mentioned in paragraphs 5.1, 6.1 and 6.2 of the Grounds of Detention
to arrive at its subjective satisfaction that the Petitioner is a "Dangerous
Person" as defined under Section 2(b-1) of the MPDA Act and that the
Petitioner's criminal activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of
public order.
15) Along with the Detention Order, the Grounds of Detention
are served upon the Detenue with the purpose and object that the
Detenue is made well aware of the exact case which he is required to
answer. The Grounds of Detention contain the basis on which the
subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority has been arrived at
and the Detention Order passed. Under Article 22(5) of the Constitution
of India, the Detenue has a right to make representation to the
Authorities. The said representation is made by the Detenue, based on
and in response to the Grounds of Detention. Pertinent to note that, the
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 17:29:15

12 of 18 306-WP-2488-2026.docx
Grounds of Detention assume and are of critical importance because
they afford an opportunity to the Detenue to make a representation at
the earliest, in consonance with Article 22(5) of the Constitution of
India.
16) In our considered view, the contents of paragraph 2 of the
Grounds of Detention clearly indicate that, the Detaining Authority had
already concluded, based on the past offences and preventive actions,
mentioned in paragraph 2 of the Grounds of Detention, that the
Petitioner was a dangerous person and, was indulging in criminal
activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The said
conclusion/subjective satisfaction is also based on past activities/actions
which are mentioned in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Grounds of
Detention.
17) Here it would be useful to refer to the definitions of
“dangerous person” and of “acting in any manner prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order” as defined under the MPDA Act which
read as follows :-
Section 2(b-1):
"Dangerous person' means a person, who either by himself or
as a member or leader of a gang, habitually commits, or
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 17:29:15

13 of 18 306-WP-2488-2026.docx
attempts to commit or abets the commission of any of the
offences punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the
Indian Penal Code or any of the offences punishable under
Chapter V of the Arms Act, 1959."
“2. Definitions. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,
-
(a) "acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of
public order" means-
(i) …..
2(a) (iv) in the case of a dangerous person, when he is
engaged, or is making preparation for engaging, in any of his
activities as a dangerous person, which affect adversely, or
are likely to affect adversely, the maintenance of public
order.”
18) To term a person as a ‘dangerous person’ it is required that,
the ingredients of both Sections 2(b-1) and Section 2(a)(iv) are
satisfied. In our opinion, the Detaining Authority, has in fact dealt with
the same in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the ground of Detention itself. We
have noted that, the Detaining Authority, after recording the aforesaid
observations has in paragraph 4 specifically stated that, it had relied on
material mentioned in paragraph 5, 6.1 and 6.2 of the Grounds of
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 17:29:15

14 of 18 306-WP-2488-2026.docx
Detention to arrive at its subjective satisfaction that Petitioner is a
dangerous person under Section 2(b-1) of the MPDA Act and that his
criminal activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of the public
order. In our considered view, the observations made in paragraphs 2
and 8 of the Grounds of Detention are contradictory, as the Detaining
Authority, in paragraph 2, arrives at its conclusion and bases its
subjective satisfaction on past offences, activities and preventive
actions, while in paragraph 8 of the Grounds of Detention, the
Detaining Authority specifically observes that it has based its subjective
satisfaction on C.R. No. 718 of 2025 and two in-camera statements of
witnesses A and B. This, in our opinion, clearly creates confusion and
thereby directly affects the Petitioner's right to make an effective
representation. One of the rights contemplated under Article 22(5) of
the Constitution of India is to afford the Detenue an opportunity of
making an effective representation. The said opportunity is of crucial
importance to the Detenue, as an action under preventive Detention is a
summary action involving imprisonment without a trial.
19) One of the rights contemplated under Article 22(5) of the
Constitution of India is to afford the Detenue an opportunity of making
an effective representation. The said opportunity is of crucial
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 17:29:15

15 of 18 306-WP-2488-2026.docx
importance to the Detenue, as an action under preventive detention is a
summary action involving imprisonment/consignment without a trial.
20) When paragraphs 2 and 8 of the Grounds of Detention are
read together, they clearly create a confusion in the mind of a prudent
person. The Petitioner while making a representation, would not be
able to clearly know whether he has to deal with the past offences
and/or preventive actions mentioned in paragraphs 2 and 3, or whether
he has to deal only with the material relied upon by the Detaining
Authority in paragraphs 5, 6.1 and 6.2, or both. This adversely affects
the Petitioner’s right to make an effective representation.
21) We note that, the references made in paragraph 2 are not a
casual or passing reference made to the past offences or preventive
actions nor can the contents be termed or referred to as only an
interlocutory preamble. The Detaining Authority has clearly concluded
that the past offences and actions of the Petitioner made him a
“Dangerous Person”.
22) We have no doubt in our mind that the contents of
paragraphs 2 and 3, when read with paragraph 8, would cause a
confusion in the mind of any person including the Petitioner and, as a
result thereof, the right of the Petitioner to make an effective
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 17:29:15

16 of 18 306-WP-2488-2026.docx
representation to the competent authority would be adversely affected.
In our view, therefore, the Petitioner’s right under Article 22(5) of the
Constitution of India was violated and adversely affected. A useful
reference can be placed on the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Vijay Kumar Dharna v. Union of India, reported in (1990) 1 SCC 60.
23) Perusal of the contents of paragraphs 2 and 8 of the
Grounds of Detention, clearly creates a confusion as to the basis and
material on which the Detaining Authority has arrived at its subjective
satisfaction. Considering the Grounds of Detention in their entirety, we
are of the considered view that, the contents of paragraphs 2 and 8
clearly created confusion in the mind of the Detenue and it is not clear
on which material the Detaining Authority has relied upon to reach its
subjective satisfaction. This, confusion and lack of clarity, in our
considered view directly affects the right of the Detenue to make an
effective representation. It appears that, the detaining authority has also
relied upon the past instances as well as the instances referred to in
paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Grounds of Detention, and still proceeded to
state that it relies only on the instances mentioned in paragraph 5 and 6
of the Grounds of Detention. In our opinion, this has prejudiced the
right of the Petitioner to make an effective representation. One cannot
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 17:29:15

17 of 18 306-WP-2488-2026.docx
lose sight of the fact that Preventive Detention action is a summary
action and the Detention is without trial. One of the safeguards
available to the Detenue is his right of making a representation as
provided under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. The said
safeguard, should be effectively, completely and meaningfully provided
to the Detenue. The right to make a representation includes a right to
make a complete, effective and meaningful representation. It is
necessary that, the facts and material on which the subjective
satisfaction is arrived at should be clear, present and not stale grounds
nor based on acts/misconduct which can be effectively and completely
addressed by the normal law of the land. In view of the aforestated
peculiar facts of this case, we are of the considered view that the
Detention Order cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed and
set-aside.
24) Hence the following Order: -
i) The Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause
(A) which read as follows :-
“A. This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue writ in
nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate order
or direction in the nature of writ, kindly quash and
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 17:29:15

18 of 18 306-WP-2488-2026.docx
set aside the illegal order of detention dated
22.01.2026 passed by the Respondent no. 1
against the Petitioner and consequentially the
Respondent no. 3 kindly be directed to release the
Petitioner from Yavatmal District Prison,
Yavatmal;"
ii) The Petitioner be released forthwith, if not required
in any other case.
iii) Petition is disposed of.
(RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
SAGAR
SANTOSH
MAGAR
Digitally signed by
SAGAR SANTOSH
MAGAR
Date: 2026.11.03
17:11:38 +0530
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 17:29:15
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)